Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

I very much agree with the second scenario outlined here; the first would be an historic disaster for Cubans and for those elsewhere hoping to forge their own solidarity-based model of development. Above all, as Professor Sachs says, allowing Cubans, and not the US government, to decide Cuba’s future is the first step in bringing Cuba back from the devastation caused by the US-enforced embargo and from the waste and inefficiency of central planning.

The issue of democracy is important here too, and Cuban views should eventually be reflected through the ballot box (and also in the workplace, which one of the aims of the cooperative sector emerging in Cuba, but which Professor Sachs makes no mention). But I see no reason for the US government to get upset about a less than US-style democracy (where corporations and billionaires set the policy parameters for politicians through their funding) or western-style democracy (where the ordinary people have a little more say) emerging in the near term. Little to no pressure is exerted by the US government on the brutal royal dictatorships in the Middle East to introduce western democracy, so why make this a precondition before anything happens in Cuba? Let a new generation of Cubans forge their own style of democracy through the ballot box and maybe also via the workplace.

I then part company with Professor Sachs, because he goes on to advocate the standard World Bank/IMF model of restructuring. This is very strange since there is virtually no evidence such an approach has had a positive impact when tried, especially in Eastern Europe where he has worked a lot. For example, Professor Sachs must be aware of the disasters created in Eastern Europe through privatization. Russia gave birth to the oligarchs and eye-watering levels of inequality, greed, capital flight and waste. Other Eastern European countries handed also over their collective assets to the worst possible individuals, or else simply unfairly enriched a new domestic capitalist elite that has robbed the country of its wealth.

A better way in Cuba would be to hold on to and promote elements of employee ownership and participation. Consider plucky Slovenia: in spite of much pressure in the early 1990s to privatize all of its worker-managed enterprises (including pressure from Professor Sachs himself, who was working there in the early 1990s as an advisor to the sections of the Slovenian government), the Slovenian government quietly decided to allow many employee-owned firms to remain as such, and as a result it saw productivity rise, investment increase and equality remain stable, an outcome that compared very well to those transition countries that adhered to his advice and privatized everything that moved into the hands of ‘get rich quick’ individual entrepreneurs. Given appropriate institutional support, Cuba’s cooperative sector could take the lead here. With Jonathan Glennie, I wrote about these issues in relation to Cuba in a recent column in the Guardian newspaper.

When the author's stated, "In the second scenario, which would constitute a historic break with precedent, the US would exercise self-restraint," I literally laughed out loud. And then they close with, " The US needs to exercise unprecedented and unaccustomed self-control....". Really funny if it weren't so sad, especially with Trump. Hope springs eternal I guess.

I was in Cuba while Batista was in power. Although I had just entered my teens, I was very aware of the
disparate economic standards. I was also aware of Havanna's distllaries, the gambling casinos and the control by Americans. But I fell in love with Havanna and regret I have never returned to stay in the beautiful hotel overlooking the bay. At that time, I didn't realize the control of plantations that exists in all Latin American countries. What is puzzling is why the US supplied Castro with tanks and arms. I recall a history professor saying that as soon as Castro was in power, he would reveal that he was a communist. Maybe the US likes countries to be in chaos and war. I was happy that the embargo was lifted, but when I heard that Obama was bringing corporations to the Island, my heart sank. The development of organic medicine in Cuba is respected all over the world and the absence of polluting chemicals contributes to the health of Cuba's People. To see this destroyed and the island and it's people once again in the clutches of fascism is too sad to be imagined. Obama was/is a Trojan horse and a tool of corporate greed and drive for control and power.

Good article. Obama is obviously aiming for your second scenario. But currency convertibility can be tricky. Are you suggesting a floating exchange rate? If so, hjw would you keep the speculators at bay?

An addendum: "Cuba should quickly make its currency convertible for trade, expand property rights, and (with considerable care and transparency) privatize some enterprises." That's it? What about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to travel, the freedom not to have wages earned from non-Cuban employers seized by the state, the release of political prisoners, repatriation of fugitives from US justice? Maybe we can throw a couple of those things in for the hell of it. We'll see how far we get.

A few citations would help here. Did any US officials actually raise " the unrestricted right of Americans to buy Cuban land and other property; privatization of state-owned enterprises at fire-sale prices; and the end of progressive social policies such as the public health system." Don't remember hearing any of that.

Ms Sachs would do well to read John Lewis Gaddis's book on the cold war, or better yet, take a course from him while she is at Yale. She might be able to see how the US response to the La Revolution fit into the global response to communist expansion. It would have been dangerous and naive to accept a communist outpost 90 miles from Florida.

Following a new chapter of the US-Cuban relationship, Jeffrey D. and Hannah Sachs point out the "opportunities and perils" for Cuba, and a "test of maturity" for the US. Despite "normalization of the bilateral relationship" after a half-century of hostility, estrangement and sanctions, historical and geopolitical realities remain. The two countries still have a long way to go and to find a new way of dealing with each other. For the little Cuba, its object hasn't changed - how to maintain independence and sovereignty in the shadow of a mighty bully. For the US it has to put aside its crippling legacy of arrogance, that had in the past alienated its neighbours.
The authors say the "normalization of diplomatic relations creates two very different scenarios for US-Cuba relations." The first is not desirable, as "the US reverts to its bad old ways, demanding draconian policy measures by Cuba in exchange for 'normal' bilateral economic relations." Since the days of Thomas Jefferson Americans had always had an overweening sense of entitlement to Cuba. In 1898 the Monroe Doctrine justified America's declaration of war on Spain, which was defeated and had to give up all claims to Cuba and ceded it to the US. Since then Cuba had been under US protection until Fidel Castro seized power in 1959.
The authors fear that Congress might be tough on Cuba and "demand the restitution of property that was nationalized during the revolution; the unrestricted right of Americans to buy Cuban land and other property; privatization of state-owned enterprises at fire-sale prices; and the end of progressive social policies such as the public health system." They say the flow of US capital and the desire of Cubans to enjoy a measure of the affluence that American investments promise, have pitfalls. Investment is welcome, yet it would be a sad end for Cuba to become another Florida.
It is doubtful whether the second scenario would be more likely, as it "would constitute a historic break with precedent" - "self-restraint". "Congress would restore trade relations with Cuba, without insisting that Cuba remake itself in America’s image or forcing Cuba to revisit the post-revolution nationalizations. Cuba would not be pressured to abandon state-financed health care or to open the health sector to private American investors. Cubans look forward to such a mutually respectful relationship, but bristle at the prospect of renewed subservience." But could the US resist the temptation not to make Cuba bend to its will, but would leave the country alone to make its own decisions? Indeed, economic reforms in Cuba are necessary, but it is Cuba’s business.
The authors advise Cuba to act quickly - "to make its currency convertible for trade, expand property rights, and (with considerable care and transparency) privatize some enterprises." They also advise Cuba to aim for "Costa Rican-style social democracy, rather than the cruder capitalism of the US." Another suggestion is " Scandinavian-style social democracy, rather than the neo-liberalism of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.)"
Cuba, after half a century under siege, needs to rethink its history, its revolution and its future. So the "resumption of economic relations between the US and Cuba is therefore a test for both countries."

There is an international media mislead: Obama visit was about dismantling (or just control) the drug trade triangle of Cuba, Venezuela and Colombia Guerilla. Of course Obama need the Pope Francis like international image. Was it a coincidence that Nicolas Maduro was Havana at the same time in a non advertised visit? Or that the FARC-Santos negotiations are in a final stage creating great polarization in Colombia? With oil revenues from Venezuela fading Castro, Maduro´s survival rest on cocaine trade well supplied by FARC and traded via Venezuela. A collapse in that income might create a migration crisis that will affect badly the US. Besides of strengthening the Central America drug trade structure.
In the historical analysis Dr Sachs failed to point out that mainly Republican US post Kennedy needed the Communist menace as a way of justifying the military spending mafia.

If only this hemisphere history were that simple...what you call the Cuban Revolution is nothing more than a mask for fascism. Fidel Castro as well as his brother Raul rank among the richest men in the planet. Where did these resources come from while their fellow citizens languished in abstract poverty? They also perpetrated an endless myriad of heinous executions as well as arbitrary detentions of their political opponents; they engaged in drug trafficking; exported their version of "revolution" and the so-called quixotic "focos" across Latin America resulting in the deaths of thousands including the best brilliant minds from both the liberal and the conservative factions; have ruthlessly assassinated civilians trying to flee from their Caribbean gulag which they call their "socialist paradise" as they boast of their “achievements”.

Now if all of the above plus other evil acts too long to mention here were all done in the name of literacy, public health, life expectancy and assisting in controlling diseases in Africa then what can one say? But I am sure that History will not absolve their boundless abominations against their own people and those of other countries just like Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were not exonerated from their villainy against mankind.

That is why to blame the US alone for the Castro’s nefarious behavior is to do a disservice to the true history of both nations relationship.

If this island in the Antilles is to have any future there has to be a radical change in the power structure. Unlike China, Cuba does not have an army of trained technocrats to build a strong economy and its citizens know that on the other side of their shores life under democratic rule there is progress and liberty rather than stagnation and oppression.